Memory Alpha talk:Featured article reviews
Featured but missing citation The following is an automatically generated list of all articles that are in both Category:Memory Alpha featured articles and Category:Memory Alpha pages needing citation. "Featured Articles" should not be missing any references, so these need to be checked and edited, or eventually put up for FA removal. -- Cid Highwind 18:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC) namespace=0 order=ascending category=Memory Alpha featured articles category=Memory Alpha pages needing citation shownamespace=false addlasteditor=false historylink=true count=10 cache=false Article Last Edited Opposed reconfirmations Would I be correct in assuming that an opposed reconfirmation, which then fails to gain consensus after the requisite time under the Memory Alpha:Featured article policies would be stripped of its FA status? This page doesn't really give an answer. –Cleanse ( talk | ) 01:26, December 1, 2011 (UTC) :Yes. The wording of this page, and how much of the policy should be covered at Memory Alpha:Featured article policies#Reconfirmations is still open to debate. I think the policy should be covered there with a link here, but since this is a new system, I went with both, more of less. The wording of both most likely needs a few tweaks still. - 01:35, December 1, 2011 (UTC) :It should also be noted that bringing up an article for reconfirmation isn't automatically a support, like it is for the original nomination, so placing a Support or Oppose somewhere in the text would be helpful. - 01:39, December 1, 2011 (UTC) Alright. Another question. "At least one vote needs to be cast". Does that then mean that (if no one else comments) someone can be both the nominator and the lone vote supporting reconfirmation?–Cleanse ( talk | ) 01:56, December 1, 2011 (UTC) :Yes. The idea is that, when there isn't a huge backlog, articles over two years old should be brought up "automatically" more or less. This is why current the articles needed to be staggered. I figured when we get to a reasonable backlog the system might be tweaked to do that better, like adding a notice of articles that need reconfirmation on the purposed editing portal. The idea is to get though these first, see how it works in use, and make adjustments as necessary. :) - 02:09, December 1, 2011 (UTC) :Hopefully the recent update to the nomination policy cleared up and clarified any wording issues with how this should work. - 03:50, December 1, 2011 (UTC) Reconfirmations vs nominations Comment:Moved from a reconfirmation after the opposition stated above. Will now need to be nominated according to full FA policy, or FA status be removed. -- Cid Highwind 17:53, December 5, 2011 (UTC) :It doesn't move, it's still a reconfirmation, we're just using the nomination rules on this one now (5 supports instead of just one, two weeks of inactivity instead of just two weeks period, etc). - 01:15, December 6, 2011 (UTC) That's a mess... -- Cid Highwind 08:16, December 6, 2011 (UTC) :It's the only way to close the massive loophole that would let you bypass the one nomination/reconfirmation per user in both this and the nomination system. I'm open to ideas how that could be made clearer in the text of the policy, and I'm sure after a few of these the hiccups will have been ironed out. ;)- 08:34, December 6, 2011 (UTC) Which accidentally I managed to do by nominating another one here after moving the first one out... won't happen again. I added a small change to the policy already, let's move further stuff to talk. :) -- Cid Highwind 08:43, December 6, 2011 (UTC) :Its a new system, no worries. :) I've moved this to the talk page, since it's more about the policy than the article. - 08:56, December 6, 2011 (UTC) :Edit conflict: We just had two issues with opposed reconfirmations: *Regarding M-113 creature, turns out that an opposed reconfirmation does not get moved to FA nominations, but stays here and is just handled according to the same rules. I tried to clarify this in the policy - please check whether I succeeded there. *Regarding Landru, the comment has been made that simple FA removal is still an option. That's true, but to be honest, I would always choose the way of a "pre-opposed reconfirmation" in the future, because that means an article will need unanimous 5-vote support (and probably become better along the way) to stay an FA - whereas it is simpler for it to stay FA through the other process. I don't consider that to be a policy loophole either, because an FA should be as good as it gets - which means it should be able to survive the more complex process at least once every two years. That would make FA removal mostly an option to be used to get rid of an FA that is not two years old yet. -- Cid Highwind 08:59, December 6, 2011 (UTC) :I'm fine with the wording as it is now, though if anyone sees a way to improve it, please do. :I believe it was mentioned in passing on the forum that the removal system should be updated to reflect the changes to the other systems with the inclusion of this one. I'm pretty sure that needs to be done for the very reason you stated, that it will deliberately not be used. - 09:11, December 6, 2011 (UTC) If we do that, do we still need two different process pages if both work alike? In that case, I would suggest the following: we keep FA nominations (of course) and FA removal (changed to work like FA reconfirmation does, now) - but instead of having a third page for reconfirmations, we just have a list of "old FAs" there, stating that FAs older than two years will need to survive a removal discussion on the FA removal page - or are removed without prior discussion once they get older than, say, three years. We would of course clear the current backlog first, so that no FA gets removed right now. -- Cid Highwind 09:19, December 6, 2011 (UTC) :My problem with moving this to removal is that discussions here are not inherently for removal. This process doesn't make the implication, it leaves the status of the article (still FA material or not) to the user. That said, I do question the need for a separate page that can only effectively cover a 18 month time frame. It makes more sense to me to merge the removal discussions here, since a removal discussion is asking us to either "confirm again" an article's FA status or not, as oppose to asking us to remove an "old" FA or not. We could allow for a "removal/opposed reconfirmation discussion" to happen early, after at least 6 months and in a different section than the two we have now, so long as a another user supports it. :As for an automatic removal point, four years would be better IMO, since that says we didn't reconfirm the article twice, instead of just fell behind because of that 6 month vacation we all took with the money we're paid to be here. ;p - 10:05, December 6, 2011 (UTC) A rose, ... :) I wouldn't mind calling the merged process a "reconfirmation" instead of a "removal", as long as it still can achieve both. Just to make that explicit: the implication of merging processes is that, if an attempted removal fails, the article will stay an FA - but it's the more current revision that gets the title (and as such, any timers such as the "automated reconfirmation after two years" one are reset). That seems only fair, because it underwent the scrutiny of a full FA process in that case. It means we'll have the following timeframes: *0-6 months after last Featuring: FA status is sacrosanct *6-24 months: status can be brought up for reconfirmation, but needs at least two oppose votes (initiator + second) to start full FA process *24-48 months: status can be brought up for reconfirmation, only one oppose necessary for full FA process *48+ months: status can be removed without prior discussion. Correct? -- Cid Highwind 10:32, December 6, 2011 (UTC) :Yes, after the backlog of course. :) :The only two reasons I can think of for why a FA should have a problem in under six months is if some massive changes for the worse happened or another movie/episode/reference guide came out and the article is then incomplete. Something like either of those should be handled on the article's talk page before making it here. So the wording should say something like "FAs shouldn't be considered for removal (or other term) until after six months from the last "featured date" (or other term) except in extraordinary circumstances." We should always allow a "removal" discussion if there is good reason, just that there should be a consensus before using the page if the article is a "new" FA. - 10:54, December 6, 2011 (UTC) ::Just wanted to say that I've reviewed the above, and agree that removal and reconfirmation should be combined into one page somehow.--31dot 11:56, December 6, 2011 (UTC) So... what happens to the M-113 creature reconfirmation now? For the record: it was posted, then opposed (at which point it turned into a "full renomination"), and now the opposition was resolved. Is it still a "full renomination" in need of 5 votes, or did it return to being a "simple reconfirmation" that just needs to be uncontested? -- Cid Highwind 22:38, December 7, 2011 (UTC) :Still needs fives votes, etc. - 22:42, December 7, 2011 (UTC) :I should note that the only way an opposed reconfirmation should go back to the "simple" version is if the oppose vote was somehow invalid, like if the vote had nothing to do with the FA criteria. - 23:00, December 7, 2011 (UTC) Reduction of time required Considering the backlog we have for the reconfirmations, I'd like to suggest a finetuning: If a FA is reconfirmed with 5 votes, with no objections, prior to the mandatory two weeks waiting time, it has passed (in theory therefore it can pass within a day.) Up for your consideration...Sennim 03:48, December 4, 2011 (UTC) :It is true that at two reconfirmations every two weeks we'll be dealing with this backlog for roughly the next two and a half years, though a day is way too short a time for this. Reducing the amount of time these take to a week if there is 5 or more support votes and no opposition might be an a good idea, as that was essentially the old FA nomination. Either way, the two currently up for reconfirmation shouldn't be effected by any change. - 05:05, December 4, 2011 (UTC) ::I support Archduk3's idea – that seems reasonable. Also Sennim, if you want to help out with the backlog, you can nominate an articles for reconfirmation yourself, one at a time. :-) –Cleanse ( talk | ) 05:48, December 4, 2011 (UTC) :Yes, that would be a big help. I was going to create a user project for this after the current two finished, but this change might make that unnecessary. - 05:56, December 4, 2011 (UTC) :::If there's both a minimum time overall (like 1 week as suggested by Archduk3) and at least a little delay between the "final support vote" and the conclusion (like, for example, waiting 24 hours after the last support vote has been cast) to avoid gaming the system, I'd be fine with that. It would only be a temporary measure to get through the backlog more quickly, I guess? -- Cid Highwind 20:17, December 4, 2011 (UTC) :I think the idea was a permanent change, since we could be back in the same boat in two years or so. Stating that 24 hours needs to have passed since the fifth support seems reasonable though. - 23:32, December 4, 2011 (UTC) Same for opposed articles There hasn't been a single "support" vote for this article - all votes, including the one that started this thread, were "oppose" votes. Would it be correct to end this discussion today or tomorrow (14 days after discussion start) - or are votes that basically agree with the initial comment supposed to stall this discussion for longer than that? -- Cid Highwind 21:21, December 19, 2011 (UTC) :I'd be willing to let this one end at 14 days with no support for the sake of expediency, though maybe we want to add an option to end at seven days with unanimous (at least five) opposition votes for future reconfirmations. - 22:00, December 19, 2011 (UTC) Yeah, that would be a good idea - something that mirrors item #2 of "Resolving reconfirmations". -- Cid Highwind 22:15, December 19, 2011 (UTC) Known errors with the list Apparently switching to for the sortkey will reset the time the article was added to the old featured articles category. Just posting for possible future reference. - 11:35, December 6, 2011 (UTC) Problematic FA list List of articles that had problematic nominations, and should be given priority for reconfirmation: *Xindi incident * *Elizabeth Cutler *Schutzstaffel uniforms and insignia‎ - 01:55, December 15, 2011 (UTC) :Agreed, when the ones under consideration are resolved--Sennim 10:40, December 16, 2011 (UTC) Rework this process While creating this process was well intentioned and worth a shot, I feel it does not draw the attention needed to remain viable in its current form. I think putting it on all of us to take the action of nominating an article for reconfirmation is the largest stumbling block here; people don't seem to be doing it, and this system doesn't work if it relies on such action. I'm not aware of any way people could be compelled to comment or nominate articles; maybe there's some way to automate the process, I don't know. I'm feeling that this page should be reworked into a place to nominate FAs for removal of their status or work to bring the up to FA standards, instead of nominating them to be kept. This way, those FAs that are not up to snuff can be pointed out and removed or worked on, while it isn't reliant on users suggesting that they be kept. 31dot (talk) 19:54, February 3, 2013 (UTC) :The idea here is that any article on the list is already "nominated", someone just has to write its name down after reading it in the appropriate section. Removing people from the process removes the only way to judge if the article is still "up to snuff", and this process has removed a fair number of articles that weren't. There were problems with the removal system before this, so I don't think we should just revert to that, but the time limits here may not be realistic if we don't want to "loose" most of the FAs to apathy instead of some problem with the article itself. That said, since the backlog is likely to never be dealt with, the final time limit never really comes into play. - 02:06, February 4, 2013 (UTC) Rename Simply changing "reconfirmations" to "reviews", for neutrality. - 01:58, March 3, 2014 (UTC)